Spam Blocked

Subscribe to "Joyce Clark Unfiltered"

Enter your email address to subscribe.

Email Address

About Joyce Clark

Contact information for Councilmember Joyce Clark
Home: 623-772-9795
Cell: 602-320-3422
Office: 623-930-2249
Please call between the hours of 9 AM - 5 PM
Email:
clarkjv@aol.com
jclark@glendaleaz.com
Joyce Clark is a 49 year resident of Glendale. She has a BA in History and Education and graduated from the College of Notre Dame of Maryland. Her past careers include teacher of high school history, small business ownership of a book store, a professional ceramist and was the founder of a retail craft gallery. Joyce and her husband, Charles, have three children and seven grandchildren.

Joyce was first elected as your Yucca district Councilmember in 1992 and served Glendale and the Yucca district from 1992 to 1996. Joyce took a four year break from public service when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s to personally care for her. In 2000 she successfully ran again for Yucca district councilmember as a write in candidate against the incumbent. She is the only candidate in Arizona to achieve a write in victory over an incumbent. She was your voice for the Yucca district for 16 years.

Joyce retired in December, 2012, and as a private citizen Joyce did many of the things she never had the time to pursue. Two of those are the tender care and feeding of her koi pond and blog writing on issues in Glendale, Arizona.

In March of 2016, Joyce announced that she would leave retirement and run for the Yucca district council seat in Glendale. Once again Joyce defeated an incumbent and on December 13, 2016 she took office as the Yucca district councilmember for another four year term, ending in December of 2020.

Joyce is the only elected official in the State of Arizona to have defeated an incumbent as a write-in candidate and then to defeat a second, different incumbent as a candidate.

Disclaimer: The comments in the blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at the regular city council workshop the issue of chickens in Glendale was discussed…again. Based upon city councilmember comments, just as the issue divided the city, it also divided the city council.

Mayor Weiers, Councilmember Malnar and Councilmember Tolmachoff indicated that they did not support allowing chickens in every residential zoning district (multi-family was not part of the proposal). Mayor Weiers felt it was a matter of choice and that if residents wanted to have chickens then they should locate in zoning districts that already allow chickens. He indicated that he and his wife moved knowingly into an area where chickens were allowed but that it was their choice. Councilmember Ray Malnar, reviewed his childhood history of living on a farm that had 300 chickens. His overarching conviction is that his mandate is to represent his constituents who, in the majority, oppose chickens and expressed his opposition to the proposal. Councilmember Tolmachoff, also expressed the majority opinion of her constituency as well as her concern that HOAs would have a major problem if they needed to expressly amend their by-laws.

Vice Mayor Hugh, Councilmember Turner and Councilmember Aldama expressed their support for the proposal. Again, all expressed their positions in terms of representing the majority sentiments of their constituencies. While Vice Mayor Hugh was mainly silent on the issue, Councilmembers Turner and Aldama were not. Councilmember Turner framed it as a question of liberty and property rights and that everyone should be free to do on their property what they wished without government interference. Councilmember Aldama acknowledged the many citizens in his district already have chickens and probably have had them for years.

The battle lines were drawn and that left me. My district is so diverse and I discovered my constituency to be divided, just as the city and the city council. I sought compromise. I sought compromise believing that if it did not totally please both sides it would be a good one. I prefaced my compromise proposal with these remarks.

This is an issue that should never have risen to this level. This matter began as a neighbor dispute that might have been resolved by arbitration or mediation. Over the past year the city has expended a lot of manpower and resources to resolve an issue that should never have been brought forward.

For thousands of years man domesticated animals for food or to assist in the production of food. Today with our society’s abundance of leisure time and resources there has become the propensity to anthropomorphize animals and we have created new classes of pets. I consider dogs and cats, as well as a few small mammals as pets. Chickens are not pets. They are classed in every municipal jurisdiction as fowl or poultry.

This issue has become a polite civil war with half the people opposed to chickens and half supporting them. Quite frankly if the issue had not arisen, people who had chickens would continue to have them and those who do not want chickens would never have been the wiser. Now, city council is asked to become Solomon to resolve an issue that no matter what the outcome, half of the community will be angry with the result.

But deciding the issue is not as simple as deciding based on numbers on petitions. As councilmembers we must also consider what is in the best interest of Glendale as a whole.

I proposed:

Expansion of chickens as a permissible use to one zoning district, R1-10 and the following will apply only to R 1-10 and M-1 (to satisfy Councilmember Aldama’s desire to include the Sonorita area which is mainly M-1). Existent code to apply to all zoning districts that currently allow chickens

Hens only, no roosters

Limit of 5 chickens

Must have a coop or structure to contain chickens

Not allowed in front yards

Rear yard must be fenced

Structure height limited to no more than 4 feet

Structure must meet side and rear yard setbacks of 20 feet

Structure must be at least 40 feet from residence as well as any immediately adjacent neighboring residence

Structure must be 80 feet away from any school, hotel, restaurant or building containing sleeping or dining accommodations

HOA regulations take precedence over city code on this issue

Chickens will no longer be classified as livestock but rather as poultry or fowl

Chickens will not be classified as pets

No matter the size of the lot, chickens will not be permitted at townhouses, apartments, condos or any other type of attached residence

Zoning codes already in place regarding chickens are not to be changed

I was hopeful that a compromise could be achieved. I did not think that those who opposed the ordinance in any form would consider a compromise. I assumed it would depend on Vice Mayor Hugh and Councilmembers Turner and Aldama to decide if compromise was a viable option for them. Vice Mayor Hugh indicated that he could support a compromise and I thank him for his consideration of it. However, Councilmembers Turner and Aldama simply could not accept it.

That left me with no choice for I knew that I could not support expansion of chickens to all residential zoning districts, especially the very small lot sizes of 4,000 or 6,000 square feet. Urban life is too dense to introduce a new possibility of backyard chickens when many homes are only 5 to 10 feet apart. Current residents as well as possible new residents do not move into dense neighborhoods with the sudden and unanticipated realization that they will have to contend with a neighbor’s chickens. To introduce chickens into thousands upon thousands of urban life-style properties seems inherently imprudent.

If there was to be no compromise I could not in good conscience support allowing chickens in every residential zoning district in Glendale. I joined with Mayor Weiers and Councilmembers Malnar and Tolmachoff to form a consensus of 4 (council does not vote at a workshop meeting) to not move forward with such an ordinance.

Does that mean the chicken issue is dead? Maybe and maybe not. Planning Director Jon Froke said that a resident or residents could file an appeal after paying a $4,000 fee to file. It would then go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council once again. I asked if an Initiative Petition with the requisite number of valid voters’ signatures could be filed. Mr. Froke’s answer was yes. It would then be placed on the ballot for the next Glendale election. Is there enough commitment and support on either side of this issue to follow through on either of these options? I don’t know but I guess we will all find out.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Like this:

Related

9 Comments

Thank you for protecting all of the citizens of Glendale. Your analysis is refershing! With a compromise, in my opnion, it would also put a load on the code compliance cases and cost ALL of the Glendale taxpayers more money. Code compliance is already overloaded with cases and has been over budget for the past few fiscal years. (Their budget is estimated at 1.4 million and they average 4 cases per day.) A change to this zonong law with restrictions, would mean instead of a straightforward compliance case as we have today, they would need to do more investigation to ensure the restrictions are adhered to. I’m not sure if that is the best use of my tax money. Again, thank you for your indepth analysis on this issue and explaining why you voted the way you did. It shows the dedication of the City Council to provide transparecy to the citizens of Glendale!

Some of the people that have adopted the ‘anti-chicken’ moaning are the people that have dogs that incessantly bark. These people deserve a irritating cackle from behind a fence in return for their mutts incessant barking and howling. Many of these anti-chicken folk also have animals that will defecate in your front yard and on your porch . I would opt for the presence of a clucking hen behind a fence any day compared to what many of these self righteous dog owners force upon us.

Mrs. Clark, you knew going into this meeting what you were willing to concede on, you didn’t really even give a half-hearted attemp to compromise, but we’re really only there to make it seem like you tried to compromise, cleverly playing both sides of the fence.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happinesss is the American way. Unfortunately in municipalities it is up to staff or elected people to determine what should be allowed in that pursuit.

There were 415 +/- who signed petitions against this ordinance change. There were 1,272 for this ordinance change based on the petitions that are in the agenda online at the city of a Glendale. Those for legalizing chickens went door to door and face to face to collect them along with having petitions at Pratts Pets & The Stock Shop. We had well over 150 pages of people who signed the petitions but we eliminated those that did not reside in Glendale and ones we were not able to read. That is a 857 signature difference. 857 MORE people wanted or were okay with backyard chickens in Glendale than those against. THAT 857 is over double the number of signatures those against collected. Both sides started collecting signatures around the same time.

We also had more people at the council workshop to represent us, I’m proud of those for legalizing chickens.

Hi Shelly,
Thank you for your commentary. Now, as Paul Harvey would say, “Here’s the rest of the story” point by point.
1. I had been thinking about this issue since I took office in mid-December. I did a great deal of independent research on the issue. I listened to constituent opinions, and read dozens of emails from residents on the subject. I offered my compromise in good faith. If you have any angst, it should be directed to the two councilmembers who were unwilling to accept compromise. Accepting compromise would have kept the issue open for further discussion and possible refinement. You may not like my final decision but you have no right to impugn my motive.
2. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a two way street Shelly. Should you be given additional rights at the expense of others’ right to enjoy city codes they had when they moved onto their property?
3. As I said in my remarks at workshop, it’s more than a matter of counting numbers. It’s also a matter of trying to decide what is right for ALL residents in Glendale.
Lastly, the dispute between you and your neighbor should never have risen to a city-wide issue that consumed more than a year and thousands of staff hours. Both of you should have worked toward accepting mediation or arbitration. Everyone who has chickens in Glendale, would have continued to have them with no problem.
I respect your right to comment. Actually, I am pleased you are unhappy with my final opinion on the issue. It has proven to me that my compromise made pro-chicken citizens unhappy and I know darn well, that the anti-chicken people were not happy with my compromise either. And that’s what compromise is. Each side gets something but not everything.
Thanks for sharing…Joyce

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I believe that my property rights are just as valid and important as anyone else, this debate could go back and forth until the end of time. 😉

I believe there was a way to come to a fair compromise. The restrictions that you suggested with set backs would not even work on a R1-10 lot. Maybe a compromise would be starting with R1-10 with looser restrictions on set backs, see how that goes and then include the lower zoning districts every 6 months or so if no major issues arise, and the sky doesn’t fall.

I hear those against continually say code enforcement is already over taxed, but I believe 2 things will happen.
1. Fewer complaints will come in to code if the nuisance and smell ordinances are handled the same as a dog complaint. (Two families not related from separate households complaining)

2. Neighbors try to resolve together, which yes, in this case would have been optimal, but didn’t happen. (However, it did happen prior when mentioned to us and was immediately remedied and we even followed up with her to insure we resolved her concern)

I think if Phoenix and other much larger cities such as New York City can manage to allow backyard chickens its not unreasonable for Glendale to allow their residents to have them. Yes, with reasonable restrictions.

The maps presented at the workshop were a bit deceiving. They were right in the fact that all of those blue areas would indeed be allowed to now house backyard chickens. But those maps, neither of them, in any way, shape or form represented the number of families in Glendale that currently do have chickens or will have chickens. They simply represented who now has the right to have chickens vs. prospective areas this would impact. Not who would get them.

If theoretically everyone who signed petitions in favor of legalizing backyard chickens got chickens that would mean maybe 1300 people would get chickens. However, you have to keep in mind how many of those people may already have chickens whether legally or illegally. I don’t think that number would be that great.

Chickens have been domesticated for over 8,000 years. Chickens as a way of life has been a foundation for many civilizations and families. As the times have changed farming has since decreased over the years and rural modern day suburbia has taken over what once use to be rural America. Since then, there has been an increase in backyard hobby farming. Although some cities have code and regulations allowing chickens, most cities prohibit citizens from owning chickens. The urban farm movement is increasing in popularity among citizens who want to know where there food is coming from and are looking for healthier alternatives to store bought produce and eggs. With chickens increasing in popularity among city members, there is a need to change the city code to allow citizens with adequate spacing to have the option of keeping chickens. The zoning law should allow any citizen with a parcel greater than 8,000 square feet the option of having poultry. Chickens will need to be housed in appropriate sized cages, fenced if free range, remain in an enclosed area to keep fowl from escaping into neighboring yards. The keeping of chickens needs to be limited with the amount being allowed no greater than ten hens with male poultry being prohibited. Coops and cages housing chickens need to be kept up and cleaned regularly as to limit fly infestation, along with any foul smells that may occur from feces. Glendale zoning code should be altered to allow citizens to own chickens within the city limits, thus being beneficial to the urban farm movement, reducing food cost for small families, and promotes good neighbor practices.
Changing the zoning law in Glendale to allow backyard hobby farmers and citizens to raise chickens will be beneficial to the urban farm movement. Urban farming is growing at a rapid rate. The movement is being accepted in cites all across America. Big cities such as Cleveland and, Los Angeles have incorporated city codes to allow urban farmers to keep chickens as should Glendale. People who raise chickens reap the benefits of knowing where there food is coming from. Incorporating chickens into small scale urban farm households will benefit by the production of eggs and uses of manure as fertilizer that can be used to grow produce from home, therefore by increasing the amount of production of produce. Incorporating chickens should be allowed; allowing urban farmers to keep ten hens will supply a small family with enough eggs per week, the excess amount can be shared with neighbors and thus increase good neighbor relations. Individuals who believe chickens are smelly and attract large amounts of flies can be rest assured that a healthy and maintained coop will do just the opposite. Individuals who raise chickens care for them in such a manner that the coops have no smell and the only way adjoining neighbors find out is by an escaped hen or they happen to look over the fence and see them. A small flock will produce less feces than a medium sized dog. The idea that chickens create a lot of waste and smell is simply a misunderstanding. Chickens are essential to urban farming and the misguided beliefs can be addressed by visiting a neighbor that has a well kept coop.
Chickens for years have been classified as livestock, per Arizona law they are considered poultry and this classification should remain. However, chickens that are kept in backyard homesteads are kept in cleaner and sanitized environments. Opponents of owing chickens say that keeping chickens as pets can cause severe health problems and that the exposure to feces from chickens can result in salmonella poisoning. However as compared to salmonella from food born the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that “approximately 42,000 cases of salmonellosis are reported in the United States every year. Due to many cases not being diagnosed, the actual number may be considerably larger” (Salmonella Fast Facts). There is a risk of salmonella is increased due to inadequate cooking standards, as long as good husbandry is followed, the risks are decreased dramatically.
Small flocks can reduce food cost for small families. According to the American Egg Board (AEB) the average consumption of egg per capita in the united stated is 250 (American Egg Board). With a family of four consuming nearly 1,000 eggs per year with the average cost of a dozen eggs being 2.68 according to Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the savings to a family can be beneficial to low income families. Eating healthier is also a benefit of home grown chickens. Eggs raised on pasture contain more essential vitamins than store bought eggs, containing more vitamin a, more omega-3s and less cholesterol. Families who raise chickens are happy to know that the food they are providing is healthier. Neighbors who raise chickens are happier and sometime give eggs to neighbors. The benefits of raising eggs can be felt throughout a community leading to increased good neighbor practices.
Chickens are catalyst to community involvement in urban farms. Raising chickens can be rewarding for all that are involved. Knowing that the food consumed is being raised in a green and healthy methods bring individuals closer to the food source. Although there has been much debate about raising chickens, the concerns can be alleviated with community involvement. Neighbors can share secretes and recipes derived from backyard homesteads. As a result the strengthen bond of good neighbor affiliations can be felt by all that are involved. Chickens have been a way of life for many, and the benefits are surprisingly delicious.
Myth 1.
Chickens Carry Diseases Communicable to Humans
Fact: the truth is that small flocks have literally no risk of avian flu transmission to humans. The 2006 Grain Report states: “When it comes to bird flu, diverse small-scale poultry is the solution, not the problem.”Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states on their website: “There is no need at present to remove a (family) flock of chickens because of concerns regarding avian flu.” Avian flu has been in the press as concern to commercial poultry production where birds are raised in monster-size flocks that are confined in over-crowed environments. This causes high stress and compromised immune systems in the birds. Any sign of disease, including a sneeze, could result in a huge number of birds getting sick; and this puts at risk a large amount of profit. As many experts have stated publicly, the solution to avian flu is in small-scale poultry.
Myth 2.
Chickens are too Noisy
Fact: Laying hens — at their loudest — have about the same decibel level as human conversation (60 to 70 decibels). Hens are so quiet that there have been cases of family flocks being kept for years without the next door neighbors knowing it. To some, noise is a concern with roosters and their pre-dawn heralding of sunrises. Many urban codes ban roosters, or only allow them to be kept with special permits. The noise level of a rooster’s crow is about the same as a barking dog; 90 decibels. But there are ways to keep roosters quiet throughout the night. Many folks regard crowing as a pleasant sound.
Myth 3.
Waste and Odor.
Fact: A forty pound dog generates more solid waste then ten chickens. To be more specific, one 40 pound dogs generates about ¾ (.75 pounds) of poo every day. Ten chickens generate about two-thirds (.66 pounds) daily poop. The advantage to chicken manure is that it can be used as valuable, high-nitrogen fertilizer. Unlike dog or cat poop, chicken poo can be combined with yard and leaf waste to create compost. Just as valuable, about 40% of the chicken manure is organic matter which is necessary for building fertile, healthy top soil. Chicken manure is so valuable that there is a product called Cockadoodle Doo®. What Cockadoodle Doo is made of? You guessed it; dried chicken manure. A 20 pound bag sells for $15.00. That’s 76 cents a pound for chicken manure! Lets take the stakes even higher. Where does most commercial fertilizer come from? Think oil. Can chickens’ services and products help us decrease our dependence on oil? Yes, in many ways and on many levels.
Myth 4.
Chickens Attract Predators, Pests & Rodents.
Fact: Predators and rodents are already living in urban areas. Wild bird feeders, pet food, gardens, fish ponds, bird baths, trash waiting to be collected all attract raccoons, foxes, rodents and flies. Modern micro-flock coops, such as chicken tractors arks, and other pens are ways of keeping, and managing, family flocks that eliminate concerns about predators, rodents and other pests. Indeed, chickens are part of the solution to pesky problems. Chickens are voracious carnivores and will seek and eat just about anything that moves including ticks (think Lymes disease), fleas, mosquitoes, grasshoppers, stink bugs, slugs, and even mice, baby rats and small snakes.
Myth 5.
Property Values Will Decrease.
Fact: There is not one single documented case that we know of about a next door family flock that has decreased the value of real estate. On the contrary, local foods and living green is so fashionable, that some Realtors and home sellers are offering a free chicken coop with every sale. An example of this athttp://www.GreenWayNews.com
Myth 6.
Coops are Ugly.
Fact: Micro-flock coop designs can be totally charming, upscale and even whimsical. Some of them are architect designed and cost thousands of dollars. Common design features include blending in with the local architectural style, matching the slope of the roof and complementing color schemes. For examples go to http://www.MyPetChicken.com.
Myth 7.
What Will Neighbors Think?
Fact: you can’t control what anyone thinks, much less your neighbor. Once folks gain more experience with the advantages and charms of chickens, most prejudice and fear evaporates; especially when you share some of those fresh, heart-healthy, good-for-you eggs from your family flock. There is one huge advantage to family flocks that is often overlooked during chicken debates. That is their role and value in solid waste management systems. Chickens, as clucking civic workers, are biomass recyclers and can divert tons of organic matter from the trash collection and landfills. Chickens will eat just about all kitchen “waste”. They love people food, even those “gone-by” left over’s that have seasoned in the refrigerator. Combine their manure with grass clippings, fallen leaves and garden waste, and you create compost. Composting with chicken helpers keeps tons of biomass out of municipal trash collection systems. All this can save BIG TIME taxpayer dollars, which is especially valuable in these times of stressed municipal budgets. There is precedence for employing family flocks as part of trash management. It is being done very successfully in some European towns. One example is the town of Deist in Flanders, Belgian. The city buys laying hens to give to residents who want them. The chickens’ job is to divert food waste from the trash stream and not having to be pickup by workers, transported, and then disposed. The savings are significant.